I did not have an opportunity of listening as fully as I should have wished to the Minister's speech last night. Reading his remarks in the other House, he seemed to make the point that this was so much of an amending Bill, designed merely to ease administration and to oil the wheels of the machinery, that it was not a matter of very much importance. I am afraid that I must take a very different view. I take the view that this Bill does affect a certain vital principle and that, to that extent, it must be regarded as in the nature of a wolf in sheep's clothing. It is, of course, a measure designed to ease the administration and to clear up difficulties which were, apparently, not foreseen when the Principal Bill—the Children's Allowances Act, 1944—was before the Oireachtas. The Principal Bill did contain a specific provision in Section 19 under which the Minister was empowered to alter the effects of these sections by regulation over a period of 12 months. There was considerable discussion on that section and the Minister made it clear that he felt it was necessary because the whole scheme of children's allowances and the machinery to operate it would be entirely new and things might arise which they did not then contemplate. Therefore, in Section 19, the Minister was given power, by Order, to alter the provisions. I have searched and have failed to find any Order made by the Minister under that section. I may be wrong but, if Orders were made under Section 19 of the Principal Act, altering the provisions, then it would have been more satisfactory if they had been brought to the notice of the other House and of this House. If one is to judge by the amendments offered to this Bill in the other House, the task of removing difficulties in one particular respect was not regarded by the Minister and his Department as a simple one. No less than three efforts were made to obtain a satisfactory amendment to Section 3 of the Principal Act—the amendment to which is now contained in Section 5 of this Bill. Therefore, this section must receive rather considerable consideration here because under sub-section (3) it defines "maintenance" for the purposes of the Act in a very special way. Briefly, the sub-section sets out the persons who are deemed to be "maintaining" a child.
When the 1944 Bill—the Principal Act—was being introduced in the Dáil, the definition of maintenance was that the child lived with and was in the custody, care and control of the person claiming the allowance. During the passage of the Bill—I cannot recall offhand at what stage, but I think it was in the other House—the definition was altered to that of "normally residing", and it was only after the Bill had first seen the light of day that the new definition was brought in. I do not know why it was changed at that time. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us.
What I want to say in respect of one of the points in this measure is a thing which one is always human enough to obtain a certain amount of pleasure from saying. There are few things that give one as much pleasure as being able to say: "I told you so." I refer the Minister to the debate in this House on the Principal Act when it was a Bill. The portion of the debate to which I wish to refer took place on the 26th January, 1944, Volume 28, No. 5, column 619. I moved an amendment to the effect that, where a child normally resided with the father, but for reasons of health or convenience was not so residing, there would be an equal entitlement to claim in respect of that child. It is somewhat gratifying to me to find that the Minister has now to come back to the Oireachtas, to obtain approval, in Section 5, for the principle which I wished him at that time to clarify by legislative enactment, which suggestion he would not accept. I want to refer particularly to a few remarks made then by the Minister. In column 621 he said:
"The Senator asks us to pay these allowances to a family even though there may not be residing in the household of that family the requisite number of children. Some of the children of that family may be living elsewhere, and there may be a contribution to their maintenance."
The Minister is now asking the House to do what I asked him to do then. I refer also, on the following page, to a final query put by me:
"Would the Minister be prepared to accept the principle of my amendment in relation to a child sent down the country for health reasons?"
The Minister was not prepared, apparently, to accept that, because he said that the absence of the child would not affect the situation. As I gather, from the necessity to introduce this Bill, it has been found by interpretation of the Principal Act that absence does very materially affect the legal capacity of a person to draw the allowance. If the amendment introduced in 1944 had been accepted, there is, at least, a strong probability that many of the difficulties which have, apparently, since arisen would never have arisen. The Minister opposed the amendment then because he felt it would introduce a means test in respect of some households and that there would be investigation into family circumstances which it was desirable to avoid. From the information given me, social workers are aware that such investigations have taken place already and, in some cases of which there is knowledge, allowances have been granted to persons who have alleged that contributions have been made, the qualifying conditions of my amendment—reasons of health or genuine convenience—not being present.
The provisions of the Principal Act were very specific as to entitlement and qualification to draw the allowance, but that cannot be said of the present Bill. The Minister stated in the Dáil that the underlying principle of the Principal Act, that the person with whom the children normally resided was entitled to claim an allowance, was not being altered, but, if that is so, I do not quite understand why the Minister found it necessary to state, in col. 1194, on the 20th of this month: "The children will, as I explained, be deemed to reside with their parents." That is not, I think, in the Bill, but it is going to be dealt with by regulation—a most undesirable practice with which it would be far better that someone more experienced in it, like my colleague, Senator Hayes, should deal.
I should like to add that this Bill appears to me to be a further step in the direction of avoiding legislation in the Houses of the Oireachtas, and substituting legislation by Statutory Order. In this particular case the Bill as it comes into this House provides for Statutory Orders, but I hope that when it leaves it, in view of the recent speech of the Taoiseach, it will not be Statutory Rules and Orders which have not to be tabled.
The Minister resisted an amendment in that regard on the Principal Act, but he did agree, somewhat grudgingly, I think, that amendments should provide that the twelve months' orders should be tabled while general orders would not be tabled. I fail to see that when a Bill with such a wide scope and dealing with such wide principles is presented to us why Orders should not be tabled before the Oireachtas so that members can appreciate and understand what is happening. I hope we shall deal with that matter at a later stage So far as this stage is concerned, I just wanted to mention two matters, and to add that the Bill appears to be one which, for those reasons, will require some considerable amendment before it leaves this House.
